Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider
registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.

archived because their website appears to be down due to DDoS or something. I've yet to be able to access for over 12 hours, now.

My thoughts:
Frankly, it seems he's mostly accurate on the science.

He's advocating FOR diversity, despite what most articles claim.

His methods may not be better than current practices for the goal of "diversity", but it has some basis in scientific thinking, at least. This was a memo, not a dissertation.

He brings up about 40 different things which can cause a cognitive dissonance bomb, so I'm not surprised at the cognitive dissonance explosion that has resulted (if people even read it... I think 99% took the "anti-diversity" headlines as truth).

This one in particular is well crafted, though I bet many people made it to this section.

Is anyone here still posting who hasn't read the memo? Seriously, it's an easy read and if you're basing your opinion on anything without having read it yourself, you're likely being mislead (even more than usual).

I had a glance to check about its relevance to his apparent job role, didn't seem to have any so can understand why he was sacked. At first I did think it was a tad harsh (assuming a blemish free disciplinary record) that he was sacked, but given the problems he's caused internally and externally for the company I can see why sacking him was an appropriate response.

He now has plenty to time to pursue his apparent interest in this matter without using resources he had no call on when he was defrauding Google...

I had a glance to check about its relevance to his apparent job role, didn't seem to have any so can understand why he was sacked. At first I did think it was a tad harsh (assuming a blemish free disciplinary record) that he was sacked, but given the problems he's caused internally and externally for the company I can see why sacking him was an appropriate response.

He now has plenty to time to pursue his apparent interest in this matter without using resources he had no call on when he was defrauding Google...

According to Google he wasn't sacked for "defrauding Google" or misuse of company time or resources. According to Google he was sacked because (a misreading of*) the things he said in the memo disagrees with company ideology.

You may agree with them that he should have been sacked, but do you agree with them that their explicitly stated reason for sacking him was valid?

*It is, of course, my opinion that it was a misreading, intentional or not, of his memo that leads to the conclusions described by Google. You will have to read the memo yourself to determine if Google's representation of what he said is accurate or not.

__________________"... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."
Isaac Asimov

According to Google he wasn't sacked for "defrauding Google" or misuse of company time or resources. According to Google he was sacked because (a misreading of*) the things he said in the memo disagrees with company ideology.

You may agree with them that he should have been sacked, but do you agree with them that their explicitly stated reason for sacking him was valid?

Have we had sight of his dismissal letter? I'd have to see that before I could comment further - as many things in this story the reporting tends to at least skew the facts - and also many folk have a narrative to sell so I wouldn't trust anything that wasn't in black and white so to speak. Comments Google make about his dismissal are to be as suspect as anything else.

It's difficult for someone from the UK with lots of experience of employment law etc. to talk confidently about this issue as the legislative base of our respective employment rights and personal rights are quite different.

For instance in the UK his personal views cannot form any part of a reason for dismissal (unless he has brought them into the workplace and they result in issues employees are protected from i.e. discrimination on the basis gender). I understand in the USA in many states etc. this would not be the case.

For me I would treat this simply as a misuse of company resources and him not performing his duties as defined in his contract and job description. The "political" stuff I wouldn't touch with a bargepole it's irrelevant to his employment.

I'm a little bit amazed that people here don't see a problem with writing a long memo filled with references attempting to argue that science shows that women are more neurotic than men, so you girls shouldn't really expect to get jobs in STEM fields at the same rate as men do.

I really don't see the point of talking about averages as the memo does. On average men are too thick to work at Google. On average Africans are not well educated enough to work at Google. On average Japanese people don't speak English well enough to work at Google.

None of these are reasons why Google cant get a diverse workforce with men Africans and Japanese people included.

Even if the average differences between men and women are true that says nothing as to whether Google can find good competent women to fill roles at the company.

When he lists Google's initiatives to increase hires of women and minorities while asserting that they are "based on false assumptions" which he doesn't specifically describe, and that despite Google's claims that they are economically advantageous, they are actually "irreparably harmful" to Google for reasons he does not qualify beyond describing the initiatives as "veiled left ideology" (which context thus implies is intrinsically a bad thing), he is condemning employees that have ostensibly been hired by or have gained from those initiatives.

No, he isn't.

Quote:

Logically, how is it even possible that hiring more women, for instance, can cause actual "harm" to the company? Simply: because concentrating on whether an applicant is "female" rather than "exceptionally good at coding" (just for example) must deprive Google of an exceptionally good coder.

If hiring whites over blacks for their skin colour or men over women for their gender is bad, then doing the reverse is bad as well. Makes sense to me.

Quote:

Nevertheless, the implication is clear: Google's initiative to hire women must work to the company's detriment because it forgoes or compromises on the hiring of "the most skilled" computer-coders in favor of hiring more "female" coders. The hiring process is detrimental because the people who are hired by it are less suited for the position than those who presumably would've been hired had that initiative not been in place.

No, it's detrimental because the people who are hired may be less suited for the positon.

You are overlooking possibilities in your analysis.

__________________"Yes. But we'll hit theirs as well. We have reserves. Attack!"

Why? The differences between individuals don't need fixing. Some people are better at abstract thinking, or art, or sports, etc. Men on average are stronger than women. How are you planning on solving that?

That's not what the principle of "equality" is.

Originally Posted by johnny karate

"Some of my best friends are black..."

That is very dismissive of both Ziggurat and the author of the letter. In fact you can post this every time someone argues against you on social issues but takes steps to make sure you know he doesn't disagree on the general idea. You can just throw that in his face, calling them a sexist or racist in the process, and halt all discussion in favour of what is essentially virtue signaling (the very thing you're mocking).

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Sure. Kindergarten teacher.

I don't think that's right. I think female teachers/caretakers/social workers are more numerous because women are just more interested in those sorts of career.

Men may be more violent as a whole, but I think it's a bit simplistic to say that. Domestic abuse seems to stem from both sides rather equally, for instance.

__________________"Yes. But we'll hit theirs as well. We have reserves. Attack!"

I call this Virtue Qualifying. It's when someone feels the need to preface their politically incorrect statements with "I'm not misogynist", "I'm not sexist", "I'm not racist" or similar statements.

An easy to identify example as of late is "I don't like Trump, but I think controversy X is overblown".

I think such statements don't indicate one thinks opposite to what they are stating, but that they are aware everyone else's first reaction will be to assume they do. This is the state of political correctness.

Yes and the fact that even then it's taken to be sexist or racist or whatever shows that you can't reason with these people.

__________________"Yes. But we'll hit theirs as well. We have reserves. Attack!"

I'm a little bit amazed that people here don't see a problem with writing a long memo filled with references attempting to argue that science shows that women are more neurotic than men, so you girls shouldn't really expect to get jobs in STEM fields at the same rate as men do.

Especially as it appears to be the case he didn't just send it to his manager or to his HR contact. If he had done that and then they sacked him that would have been disproportionate*, it's the wider dissemination that caused him the problem.

*That could have been dealt with a "Thanks for your feedback. Please see: xxxx.xxx.xxx for company policies regarding discrimination in the workplace."

And they aren't being approached by people at random. I know several programmers that have applied to Google in the UK because they want to work at Google. Not everyone will want to work at Google (I wouldn't). What Google for sound business reasons does not want to happen is - for example - excellent one legged programmers to not apply because they think Google discriminates against disabled people.

I'm a little bit amazed that people here don't see a problem with writing a long memo filled with references attempting to argue that science shows that women are more neurotic than men, so you girls shouldn't really expect to get jobs in STEM fields at the same rate as men do.

You are wrong. I've corrected this multiple times now. He did not say that women were more neurotic (a disorder). He said they had more neuroticism (a personality trait). And they absolutely do, as a group. The science is quite clear on that.

__________________"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

__________________"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law

And they aren't being approached by people at random. I know several programmers that have applied to Google in the UK because they want to work at Google. Not everyone will want to work at Google (I wouldn't). What Google for sound business reasons does not want to happen is - for example - excellent one legged programmers to not apply because they think Google discriminates against disabled people.

Exactly. And when steps are made to accommodate preferences of other kinds of people it seems people get up in arms and start with all the on average nonsense.

Why the hell are we serving sashimi in the cafe to pander to the Japanese people we hire when everyone knows Japanese people don't even speak good English on average. It's pc gone mad!

Leadership positions as they currently exist seem to disproportionately appeal to psychopaths.

Then why on earth would you trust Google's leadership (who are most likely psychopaths) to choose the proper way to handle this situation? Why would you trust their diversity program, designed and approved by likely psychopaths, to improve anything?

__________________"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law

__________________"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law

Leadership positions are not natural phenomena. They are man made. If women don't like them the way they are we can change them so they will like them more.

Why? Why would you want to change it so they will like them more? Would you change the hairdressing industry to make it more interesting to men? How about coal mining, to make it more interesting to women?

Of course you can change things, but I think that, despite not being natural phenomenon, these things find their own "balance" naturally. Take capitalism for example. It's a more-or-less natural consequence of how humans operate. Sure it creates inequalities, but if you try to force communism just to put everyone on the same level, you might find that it'll clash with human nature quite a bit and won't work in the long run.

__________________"Yes. But we'll hit theirs as well. We have reserves. Attack!"

Why? Why would you want to change it so they will like them more? Would you change the hairdressing industry to make it more interesting to men? How about coal mining, to make it more interesting to women?

Of course you can change things, but I think that, despite not being natural phenomenon, these things find their own "balance" naturally. Take capitalism for example. It's a more-or-less natural consequence of how humans operate. Sure it creates inequalities, but if you try to force communism just to put everyone on the same level, you might find that it'll clash with human nature quite a bit and won't work in the long run.

What natural process achieves this balance? And that appears to be just moving the naturalistic fallacy rather than addressing it.

The same processes that achieve equilibrium in other cases e.g. evolution. Things just tend to find a balance. That sounds philosophical, doesn't it? Damn, I feel dirty.

I recognise that we use evolution in a loose way in everyday discourse but you are proposing it as a mechanism so you can't be doing that. What inherited characteristics are being selectively differentiated for in the employment of software engineers?

Originally Posted by Argumemnon

Just mentioning nature isn't a naturalistic fallacy, you know? There can be good reasons to try to match our natural tendencies.

Of course there can be - but that isn't what you did - you in essence claimed there was a good result due to it being a natural - but unspecified - process or processes.

I recognise that we use evolution in a loose way in everyday discourse but you are proposing it as a mechanism so you can't be doing that. What inherited characteristics are being selectively differentiated for in the employment of software engineers?

What? You asked me for a process that resulted in balance in this instance, and I said that it's the same processes that govern other stuff including evolution. I didn't say that this situation is like evolution. Jeez.

Quote:

Of course there can be - but that isn't what you did - you in essence claimed there was a good result due to it being a natural - but unspecified - process or processes.

No, that's not what I did -- in essence or otherwise. I never said or implied that the result was good due to it being natural. I suggest you read my posts more carefully.

__________________"Yes. But we'll hit theirs as well. We have reserves. Attack!"

If there isnt a 50:50 in applicants, then a company attempting to reach a parity is a) preventing another company from doing so and b) likely offering positions to less qualified individuals (unless the underrepresented demographic is 'natually' superior in those skills, which is an argument that accepts differences).

If there isnt a 50:50 in applicants, then a company attempting to reach a parity is a) preventing another company from doing so and b) likely offering positions to less qualified individuals (unless the underrepresented demographic is 'natually' superior in those skills, which is an argument that accepts differences).

ETA: I'm all for diversity, but this is not how to get there.

This supposes a person doing the hiring knows what is qualified for the job. They do not.

If there isnt a 50:50 in applicants, then a company attempting to reach a parity is a) preventing another company from doing so and b) likely offering positions to less qualified individuals (unless the underrepresented demographic is 'natually' superior in those skills, which is an argument that accepts differences).

ETA: I'm all for diversity, but this is not how to get there.

Is that Google's employment policy? 50:50 men and women? Can't recall seeing that in the memo.

Words are an action, touching is an action, standing up is an action, wearing socks is an action, opening a door is an action.

Not all actions are the same, not all actions have the same consequences.

I am quite astonished that this is seen as controversial in any way.

You chose touching, specifically. You didn't say killing, or sneezing. You can't blame people for thinking that your choice of touching was supposed to be relevant to your argument.

__________________"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law

Don't use your position at work to publish and disseminate sociopolitical, religious or philosophical texts even more so if they happen to be about a subject that's highly contentious. If you do you're essentially associating your company or business with a certain political viewpoint and when it comes to large international corporations like Google they are more than right to not want to be associated with that.

It doesn't matter if your opinions are perfectly reasonable or completely crazy. Especially don't justify or rationalize the casual sexism in STEM sector that the company you work for has tried to counteract. Seriously.

No Google employee would ever dare say so in a memo, because so much pride and angst and nerd chicness is at stake, but...

...coding is easy.

(shock outrage and horror go here: )

If there were jobs manually counting the corn flakes in cereal boxes, and the counts had to be exact or else the employer would suffer massive revenue losses, I would expect those jobs to be mostly filled by men. But of course in that case it wouldn't be any point of pride, nor would a relative lack of women in the field be considered a social problem, even though those women who actually did choose that career would be just as good at it as men.